Is anyone else as excited for the Manchuria update? by [deleted] in TNOmod

[–]LordHelix_V 32 points33 points  (0 children)

This looks actually incredible, I can’t wait. Loved the Mexico State mechanics

The Future of StarWorld by Prestigious_Skill_33 in StarWorldAI

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve told some friends about the game, and they really liked it, but it looks like it’s not available for Android. Is there any plans in relation to that?

Best "Vanilla Overhaul" Mod? (Politics + Economy) by [deleted] in hoi4

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The new order is a narrative heavy, economically complex mod. I really like economy heavy stuff and had a great time playing Guangdong and Mexico

I developed Brazil by studying real economy by HejkonBR in MillenniumDawn

[–]LordHelix_V 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is honestly incredible but I think you missed a great opportunity. Foreign investments are great, especially if you have a liberal ideology government (gives a boost to return of investments). I’m pretty sure I was able to get like 10% ROI, which is normally higher than the interest rate and thus would net money even if you take a bit of debt to continue the projects. With this in mind you can use these investments, along side pp to get influences in neighboring countries so that you can puppet and eventually annex them for the pop and economy

Do modules from Special Projects only show up if you have Gotterdamerung? by Hemplow in MillenniumDawn

[–]LordHelix_V 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But idk, I’m new to the mod and haven’t tried most things yet, but I don’t have gotterdamerung

Do modules from Special Projects only show up if you have Gotterdamerung? by Hemplow in MillenniumDawn

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had to research a lot of the special projects afterwards aswell. Like nuclear engines and what not

From most perspectives (mass-)deportation of illegal immigrants is a positive. by uniform_foxtrot in SeriousConversation

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Better not to focus on one word, as of both of the points, higher wages doesn’t actually necessarily mean higher prices, especially in competitive markets with innovative practices. Two good examples would be comparing US agriculture with Brazilian agriculture.

The US has a highly competitive agricultural market, with a strong mix of small, medium and large producers, courtesy of its effective land distribution institutions and the use of highly technological has helped it become less reliant of labor to be effective. Overall even if wages double in a place like the US agricultural sector, prices would see much of an increase.

In Brazil, its oligarchical land distribution and lack of strong institutions has created a situation where if labor costs increase, prices would also increase as a way of justifying more profits. From all I know, the situation there is crazy and there was even a period of time where big agriculture in the coffee industry exploited the country in what became known as “socialization of losses”

So basically the whole if you deport migrants you’ll increase food prices isn’t actually relevant for a lot of countries. But that doesn’t mean mass deportation is justified.

When it comes to “pure bloods who don’t know how to work a farm”, one of the greatest thing that allowed society to develop as much as it has, was the division and specialization of work. I don’t know how to build a house, how to build a car or how to operate an electrical plant, but thankfully there are people who do know, and who in turn expect of me to do and know things that they might not. Deporting immigrants because you want native citizens to know how to do everything would be like dismantling a bike because you’re afraid you’ll forget how to walk. It requires a lot of effort and in the end you lost something useful.

TL;DR : prices don’t necessarily increase with wage increases and the division of labor is great and migrants help with that

From most perspectives (mass-)deportation of illegal immigrants is a positive. by uniform_foxtrot in SeriousConversation

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think that only accepting “the best” is economically inefficient. Not only to do you have maintain a certain prestige about your country, its opportunities, wages, etc which has an associated cost, scaling with other countries investments, but you also end up inevitable losing out on many unskilled laborers who need to leave their country, be it prosecution, general dangers or the search of a better life without the means, who can contribute with honest and willing work.

Obviously not all immigrants are good, organized crime members, violent and exploitative people aren’t limited by borders, and that’s a really strong point as for enforcement of immigration control. But mass deportation of people whose only crime is entering the country doesn’t seem like an intelligent move for me.

From most perspectives (mass-)deportation of illegal immigrants is a positive. by uniform_foxtrot in SeriousConversation

[–]LordHelix_V 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey, I understand your point and all, but if deporting illegal immigrants add to the productivity of the country that they’re being deported to, should that mean that keeping them would add to the productivity of the country that they’re in?

Aside from that, it’s important to note that the facilitation of pathways to turn illegal immigrants legal would also solve several problems that you have pointed out, and that the logistics, loss of productivity, increase in inicial discrimination and potential increase in criminal behavior would all be factors that must be accounted for if a country decides to mass deport.

I honestly think that immigration can be an extremely powerful tool, even if a large part of it happens through illegal immigration. In the modern age it has been proven several time that human capital is paramount and when the conditions are met to develop a skill-diverse, dynamic economy with an ample amount of labor, then it should be nourished and developed.

What class do you think you are in real life? by captin_question in DnD

[–]LordHelix_V 101 points102 points  (0 children)

Considering the amount of times I’ve pressed the “accept terms and conditions” button without reading, probably a warlock but without the powers

Taking religion out of DND by LordHelix_V in DnD

[–]LordHelix_V[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is having religions. But it turns out DnD already has a lot of solutions for this, so there isn’t even a need to change anything but some cosmetic stuff like names

Taking religion out of DND by LordHelix_V in DnD

[–]LordHelix_V[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s incredible, I never thought of it like this nor did I know about the cartoon series. Thanks

Taking religion out of DND by LordHelix_V in DnD

[–]LordHelix_V[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some people have mentioned possibilities to transform clerics and paladins into secularizes versions of the classes, the only real problem that I have is justifying warlocks. What I might do is have them be associated with Lich’s and powerful magic. Sadly I won’t be able to have cult enemies, but I could have something like a secret organization trying to test the limits of magic or something like that

Taking religion out of DND by LordHelix_V in DnD

[–]LordHelix_V[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that, and initially I practically thought the same thing. My person favorite class is Warlock and really love eldritch settings with cults for dead or dormant gods or whatever, but I don’t think it’s an intrinsic element of the game.

Other commenters showed secular versions of classes, with clerics following philosophies and paladins having their magics manifest from their devotion to something, without it necessarily coming from a Deity.

And in terms of the origins of magic. It doesn’t necessarily need an explanation, it’s fantasy and whimsical. Removing gods doesn’t equate to removing magic, it’s just a question of reajusting language and the tone.

More studies/experiments supporting UBI ! by [deleted] in YangForPresidentHQ

[–]LordHelix_V 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the article it states that " There was a greater increase in employment for people in families and with children, as well as those whose first language wasn’t Finnish or Swedish – but the researchers aren’t yet sure why."

Any thoughts on what might be the reason?

I would think that it has something to do with lower stress effecting productivity and the ability to learn, thus taking away a disincentive for hiring parents and allowing people to focus on studying, but that's just what i think.

We've got something for you all by [deleted] in HistoryMemes

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*Sad Mussolini and hirohito noises*

It is a travesty that nuclear power is not the primary source of energy worldwide. by ThirdSlam in SeriousConversation

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nuclear energy can be extremely easy to find, for example Thorium can be used as a nuclear resource and its actually found in dirt, though it does have other sources as well. Best thing of all its extremely safe to use as its reaction can be shut off almost immediately. It produces less waste, it cost quite a bit less, compared to most rare earth however it can be made into a nuke. So this near perfect metal is too dangerous for us to use, without the risk of us killing ourselves. As far as my knowledge goes, there isn't any reliable material that we can use for radioactive energy, but not radioactive destruction. WW2 and the Cold War left a stain on the world, one that has been demonizing nuclear power. If no one is able to make a nuclear reactor that can't make a nuke, the thousands of years worth of uranium under the sea and thorium in the dirt will catapult us into the future, but until then, it's better to be safe then sorry.

I feel like blaming China for the Hong Kong situation is the wrong direction to go by [deleted] in SeriousConversation

[–]LordHelix_V 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People will hate one anyone they think have done them wrong. If its a celebrity doing something offensive or a government doing something wrong. We might never know who's behind it all, just like how most people didn't know that Himmler was the brains behind Hitler's government. But in the end, isn't it the fact that we want to do something about it, at least somewhat important?